Wife's Patience & Silence To Save Marital Life Reflects Her Sincerity, Not Weakness: Madhya Pradesh High Court

A bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia added that if, after realising that her in-laws have gone to such an extent where reconciliation is not possible, a daughter-in-law decides to lodge an FIR complaining about cruelty meted out to her, then it cannot be said that said FIR is a counterblast to the petition for divorce.

These observations were made by the Single Judge while dismissing a plea filed by a husband and his relatives (6 in number) challenging an FIR lodged against them at the instance of his wife (respondent no. 2).

The wife lodged the FIR under Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act alleging that she married applicant No.1 in 2015, wherein her father gave Rs.11,00,000 in cash and household items as dowry.

It was her claim that after their daughter's birth, the applicants demanded an additional Rs.5 lakh as dowry and a Honda car. When she explained to them that her father couldn't provide the same, they subjected her to physical and mental abuse. The impugned FIR was lodged after all attempts to reconcile failed.

Challenging the FIR, the counsel for the applicants argued that vague and omnibus allegations had been levelled in the FIR against distant relatives (applicants No.5 and 6). It was submitted that after the husband (applicant No.1) instituted a petition for a grant of divorce, the FIR was lodged by the counterblast.

It was also submitted that applicant No.1 has also lodged a criminal complaint against respondent No.2 as well as her father and brother for offence under Sections 384, 389, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

On the other hand, the counsel for respondent no. 2 (wife) submitted that so far as applicants No. 5 and 6 are concerned, their real daughter-in-law had also lodged an FIR against them under the same sections, which suggests a pattern of greed-driven abuse.

It was also argued that both the relatives of her husband were interfering in her daily life and that the timing of the FIR, after the divorce petition, doesn't make it a counterblast. Still, rather it shows that the wife had been patient in trying to save her marriage.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the single judge noted that as per the FIR and the allegations levelled therein, it becomes clear that applicants No.3 and 5, who are real sisters, are interfering in the family affairs of each other's family and prima facie treating their daughters-in-law with cruelty and the allegations against them are specific and clear.

So far as the submission made by counsel for applicants that the FIR in question was lodged after the institution of an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was concerned, the court noted that if the wife maintains patience and silence with the solitary intention to save her matrimonial life, then it cannot be said that it was her weakness, rather it shows her sincerity towards the marriage.

Accordingly, opining that allegations made in FIR are sufficient to prosecute the applicants, the court refused to quash the proceedings and, thus, dismissed the petition.